Sandy Bridge Extreme Final Thoughts

I think this is the first time I've tested a new processor that so decisively dominated the benchmarks. There's no doubt about it: the Core i7-3960X Extreme processor is a benchmark-smashing beast of a CPU, leveraging Intel's brilliant Sandy Bridge core architecture and sweetened with more cache and even more cores. Intel's "Extreme" series CPUs have always represented the best the company can produce, and it's instructive to look at the stock-clocked performance of this new CPU as compared to its Extreme series predecessor, the Core i7-980X. As with the overclocking chart in the previous section, the scores below show the base score normalized to 1.0, with the comparison score expressed in terms of this.

With a solid 29% average score improvement over the 980X on this mix of benchmarks, the 3960X represents one of, if not the most, significant performance leaps over a previous-generation CPU I've ever seen. There's just so much performance available that even the most avid enthusiast will have to ask themselves if they have any realistic use for it. Intel is, wisely, aiming at multimedia and content creators as the principal audience for this chip, since these are the classes of applications that can best use all the threads this CPU can handle. If you work with applications that can keep the 3960X's capacious maw full of data, you'll see amazing performance that will easily justify the cost of a new system in increased productivity.

980X Score

3960X Score

AIDA64 Queen

1.0

1.23

AIDA64 Photoworxx

1.0

1.85

AIDA64 AES

1.0

1.71

AIDA64 ZLIB

1.0

1.37

AIDA64 Hash

1.0

1.41

CINEBENCH Single Core

1.0

1.31

CINEBENCH Multi Core

1.0

1.27

Passmark CPU Marks

1.0

1.42

PCMark Vantage TV/Movies

1.0

1.11

PCMArk Vantage Gaming

1.0

1.06

PCMark Vantage Music

1.0

1.13

Street Fighter IV

1.0

1.15

Handbrake 0.95

1.0

1.24

x264HD Run 1

1.0

1.24

x264HD Run 2

1.0

1.24

x264HD Run 3

1.0

1.22

x264HD Run 4

1.0

1.24

SPECviewperf Lightwave

1.0

1.21

SPECviewperf Maya

1.0

1.07

SPECviewperf TCVIS

1.0

1.47

SPECapc Lightwave Interactive

1.0

1.16

SPECapc Lightwave Multitasking

1.0

1.18

SPECapc Lightwave Rendering

1.0

1.29

Blender/Icetest

1.0

1.41

POV-Ray

1.0

1.22

Average Performance Improvement

29%

There are other advantages inherent in the platform: many X79 motherboards have 8 DIMM sockets, which means that you can install up to 64 GB of RAM in your desktop system. For some applications, this will be a tremendous advantage, as will the 48 PCI-E lanes.

For most of us, though, the Core i7-3960X makes as much sense as a 1,000 horsepower street car. It's fun at the dragstrip (running benchmarks), but a Core i7-2700K on a nice Z68 motherboard will be a fraction of the price and just as fast in "real world" terms.

Comments

"For most of us, though, the Core i7-3960X makes as much sense as a 1,000 horsepower street car. It's fun at the dragstrip (running benchmarks), but a Core i7-2700K on a nice Z68 motherboard will be a fraction of the price and just as fast in "real world" terms."

This is a new era in power that will remain almost completely unused and unnecessary for most people, like you say, even us enthusiasts will need to think twice, except those who have money to needlessly burn.

You would think in these economic times, R&D of high dollar items like this would slow down. Interesting. At the same time, my i7 920 cost 1000.00 back in 2008, so the price to power ratio has dramatically fallen too.

Opps, no you are right; The 920 was the lower end that you could OC and get 960 performance from, or better. I think the top end was 960 back then. In any event, the price stays the same for the top end and the performance gets better.

Depends on what this means "hit one out of the park" -- and what "dominate" means if you mean "make money for Intel", consider that Intel's ee chips are about 0.005% of their sales, and in the big picture of comparisons you could easily say that almost no one buys these, nor needs these, when a $150 fusion or SandyM proc is satisfying most people's needs.

But rich fanbois have big egos to satisfy so there will always be market for for stuff priced way out of line with what it is really worth. Useless - if I'm paying $1000 for a CPU it better be a multi CPU server chip in a render farm - something where you can get a return on your money at least. just my 2 cents for an alternate perspective.

because egos get stroked when you mention the size of yer renderfarm?I think petty envy speaks always more to one's ego state. Anyone's needs that are "really satisfied" by todays computing power will probably have a "cute device" for their "cute needs" soon enuff. and good riddance.My needs are far from even close to being satisfied... though cinebench over 12 is at least progressing ( not enough knowing the Ivy Extreme will be released in 2012. And hopefully that benchmark gives more distance )

Catch 22 is really depressing! There is an army of artists whose talent could bring yer boss machine to it's knees given the chance. Instead they compromise to console greed economics. And instead of buying hardware that can push the boundries a market without that entertainment actually believes that we are at "good enuff".

Thanks for the consolitic ball and chain!

Buy it and they will make it/ Make it and they will buy it.

What do "most" users do with their computers that does not desperately need more computing power? Don't they have an app for that yet?

I'm sorry to say,but this review is a little stupid.The majority of the people buying this platform are not going to be able to buy a 1000.00 dollar cpu.What you should have reviewed and what most people wanting to build a new setup want to see is the 3930k compared to the 2600 or 2700k.It makes much more sense to buy a 550 dollar 6 core oc it and cook along than buying a 1000.00 6 core which probably only has a minimal increase in performance.I can tell you I would rather build a system with a 2600k if fps's are higher than building one with the 3930k.But we don't know the answer to this question because you decided to review the new hot rod that no one can afford.

I think when everyone has bought their idevices it will be alot better. Computers will be sold to people who need computing power again. And articles will simply be written for a market that needs that power.

I know the cpu only minimally increases frame rates but when your building a high end gaming system every frame counts and some games are more cpu dependant.Your going to get better frames out of a system with a 2600k and a 590 over a system with a 8150 and a 590,other specs the same of course.I do admit I was a liittle harsh,sometimes these companies send you whatever they want,not what you request.I think intel should be strung up by their toes,I'm tired of this greedy monopoly they have,but thats also amd's fault for not handling their end of things properly.

After working night and day for a full week to produce several deep-tech articles for the launch, we tend to take destructive criticism personally. Add to this that David and I both worked through illness to meet the deadline, and well, let's just say we hope to get paid for our extra efforts in constant praise. We cross our fingers, but...

Look on the bright side: now that Intel's Core i7-3960X has significantly raised expectations, you might soon find AMD processors selling in the blue-light section over at K-Mart. I understand they fired their entire marketing staff of 1400 workers after Bulldozer launched, so the only people saying anything good about them these days are the fan boys, and even they're unhappy.

You're right about frame rates with some games, and I over-simplified my statement. Battlefield 3 is one such game, and DirectX-11 effects drive all processor cores to nearly 50% usage even when played with a GTX 590. Obviously, there are times when the CPU will make a difference in game performance, but that requires advanced technology at a time when most developers are keeping to console (a la Modern Warefare 3).

What about readers who have a different set of criteria than you, say systems managers wanting to get the most power for a large (or smaller) design company? What about the person who is thinking about buying the 2600, but wants to know how it stacks up against the best? What about a review site that doesn't test the latest and the greatest? What about, actually, trolling?

This was a very comprehensive review. It left me with no questions about the comparison of power.

What criteria do you think most of their readers fall under?I would think gamers.As I said I was being too critical.I have read thousands of reviews and sometimes,I am too critical.Not trolling though.

"For most of us, though, the Core i7-3960X makes as much sense as a 1,000 horsepower street car. It's fun at the dragstrip (running benchmarks), but a Core i7-2700K on a nice Z68 motherboard will be a fraction of the price and just as fast in "real world" terms."

Yeah, SPECapc Lightwave doesn't keep all of the cores going all the time. Back when I reviewed the 2600K, I got 519 seconds for the rendering suite for a 2600K running at 4.7GHz, but that was with an NVIDIA GTX 280 video card rather than the Radeon 6850 I was using this time around, so the results aren't directly comparable.

Hmm, well I only test the rendering suite and my cores stay pegged once each scene is loaded and rendering begins. I can get pretty consistent results between 440-445 seconds at 4.9G. Also, at a couple of suicide runs that I knew weren't stable at 5.0G, it completed at 431 and 433.

I just wanted to say the fact you include this test in your reviews is very helpful to me, so thanks again. :-)

But if you multiply that 10% over X employes by X renders per day over a year, it might far make up for the price of the CPU. Let's say a project, like a modeling program, takes 10 minutes to complete every run. That's 1 minute each run time saved. If you do 120 runs in 24 hours, that's a total time savings of 2 hours each day? If you can run everyday, that's an extra moth of time each year.

So yes, you pay 300% more, but that is a one time cost compared to getting that 10% every single time you run a model.

I wonder how ivy bridge will perform against sandybridge. Which is out soon! The extreme sandybrdige chips are out almost 2 years later than westmere extreme chips. The perfomance gain is expected.I believe the 3d ivybridge will be a better bargain than these.

Idont know if ivybridge extreme will be compatible with x79 mobo but P67 mobos will all for ivybridge upgrades making the 2600k chips a better deal from the getgo.

Still will probably wait for ivy bridge - E as the cinebench numbers do not justify dropping $1500 for x79 porn. But if the 3 way scaling is even close to the truth then I am very happy that the IVY Bridge solution will most likely do as much.

Makes waiting a few more seasons for my new dragster pretty hard though.